Contents

Kirk tells Uhura not to make a report to Starfleet until they are out of Trelane's range, which he speculates would be the point at which they entered the solar system. Yet it had already been clearly established that Gothos was not part of a solar system, being in the midst of the "star desert."

To make Gothos block the Enterprise's way, the effects department just overlaid the planet over the starry background. As a result, stars can be seen through the planet.

In one syndicated version, the scene in which Trelane shoots a phaser at the creatures on display is cut out.

The pistols in this episode are not copies of those used in the Hamilton-Burr duel.

Trelane's knowledge of Earth events isn't as complete as he claims; for example-the pistols he forces Kirk to use are not like those in the Alexander Hamiltonduel.

During the prologue the bridge crew is drinking beverages from paper cups. After the opening credits, set four hours later, they are all gone. However for one close-up of Uhura at the beginning of act two her cup is back on her console. In the following wide-shot it has disappeared again. The close-up was clearly an unused shot from the opening sequence.

I think the name of the firm that did the research for "Trek" was actually named "Kellam-Deforest." I recall reading that this firm's name was often mixed up with the name of actor Deforest Kelley. Could somebody doublecheck? Sir Rhosis 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought that Kellam de Forest was a person's name, i've never seen it with a hyphen.. whether i'm wrong or not, and whichever is the proper hyphenation, yes, this is the name i've heard. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I had thought so too, but "Kellam de Forest" is a person; "de Forest Research, Inc." is the firm. See IMDb, for example. The reason we all know it as Kellam is that is the way the memos in The Making of Star Trek read. It may have been a one man shop, but the firm's name isn't the same as his. My spelling was a little off based on my source material, but I'll change it to match the right spelling. Aholland 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kellam Deforest (whose name was strangely close to Deforest Kelley) WAS a one-man shop. He was an astounding individual with a near-photographic memory. Although he had research tools to look up names, places, etc., most of his research was done strictly out of his incredible brain. He worked as a reseacher for motion picture producers, novelists and news organizations through the 1950s, 50s and 70s. He was used mostly to see if ficticious names producers/writers were considering had ever been used before in literature, ect. SDCCC 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellam deForest was NOT a one man operation. In fact, Mr. DeForest did not write a single research report for Star Trek. Virtually all of the Star Trek reports - from TOS through the first episodes of Enterprise were written by Joan Pearce. The others were written by Peter Sloman. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.136.241.142 (talk).

Hello Folks...

A few notes of clarification:

Kellam de Forest is not a was. He is alive and kicking, and as remarkable as ever. He is a fine writer, and heavily involved in community, landscape and historic preservation, fields in which he has made impressive contributions.

In addition, Mr. de Forest has never taken credit for work he did not do. He is, in fact, a one man operation, and a remarkable one at that. Please contact him if you wish to clarify his contributions to any project.

Gregory Hubbard

Further (and, it is to be hoped, final) clarification:

"deForest Research" was the firm founded by Kellam de Forest, and which did the original research on "Star Trek". Research on the pilots and first three episodes was done at dFR by Rona Kornblum, most likely with some input from Kellam de Forest. Beginning with "Balance of Terror", the reports were written by Peter Sloman. When Sloman went off to college, the late Joan Pearce took over, and thereafter Pearce and Sloman (when he was at dFR) collaborated on the reports, most of them written by Pearce. This collaboration continued long after Pearce and Sloman left dFR; later research (on "ST: TNG", "ST: DS9" "ST: V", "ST: E" as well as the later films) was done by them, or by Pearce alone, at Joan Pearce Research Associates. 63.198.131.121 20:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC) Peter Sloman

Kirk and Spock make a common error at the end of this episode: there is no such word as "mischievious" - it is "mischievous." Perhaps in the 23rd century, however, this has changed.

Removed, unless someone can explain how they can hear the difference, because I certainly can't figure it out. If it is based on the scripts, that's one thing, but that should be the note, rather than about Kirk and Spock. --OuroborosCobratalk 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one first season episode in which Kirk makes a log entry "Stardate: 15 something." I get the feeling that the writers were wandering around a bit during the first season... Any indication that the Squire grew up to be Q? -- Craig Goodrich 68.58.135.168 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

UHURA: A strong interference on subspace, Captain. The planet must be a natural radio source.

KIRK: Let's get out of its range.

What it all basically boils down to is how grammatically weak the line in and who is interpreting it.

Alternatively, "Uhura, notify the discovery on subspace radio," could mean:

"Uhura, notify [Starfleet of] the discovery on subspace radio."

"Uhura, notify the discovery [to Starfleet] on subspace radio."

"Uhura, broadcast the findings on subspace radio."

"Uhura, notify the [starship/USS] Discovery on subspace radio."

The confusion of this subject roots back to closed captioning/subtitles (from at least) which treated it as a proper noun ("Discovery"). Sources for this include the closed captioning from the original 2-disc DVD release of TOS (found here), and I also recall seeing it on some TV broadcasts, such as the Sci-Fi channel. Based on the most current DVD box set it is no longer a proper noun.

Meanwhile, the article assumes the line means that "the Discovery" means that it was a starship, which makes the sentence (in the article) "and notify her of the existence of" even more misleading about what was really said in the episode. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering "What is the Discovery and why is Enterprise trying to contact it as opposed to some other vessel? What's so special about Discovery?" I think you're right, though, Kirk is asking Uhura to notify Starfleet about their discovery, not contact the Discovery. --From Andoria with Love 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the new captions say 'discovery' without a capital D then yes, this should be deleted. The line as broadcast suggested to me that 'D/discovery' was to receive the notification, since the idea of 'notifying a discovery' sounded grammatically ludicrous.

Was this at any point clarified in behind-the-scenes materials?--Bounty 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is now being discussed on the deletion page linked on the flip side of this article. --Alan del Beccio 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might all be more ado about something than is necessary. A check of the October 26, 1966 Final Draft shooting script for "The Squire of Gothos" indicates that Kirk's scripted line is "Uhura, report the discovery on sub-space radio ---" It would appear that Shatner simply mis-delivered the scripted line as "notify" instead of "report" and the script supervisor didn't notice the (ungrammatical) slip up. GSchnitzer 01:39, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article and removed some information. Info in ( ) below was not removed.
I removed the following for being nitpicks:

(Leslie (Eddie Paskey) is in the captain's chair when the crew first escapes Trelane.) Curiously enough, he is the transporter officer five seconds before.

I removed the following for being commentary:

Trelane's parents do not seem to be aliens with the typical superiority complex so often seen from superbeings. Although they refer to Trelane's specimens as "pets", they also tell Trelane that, in fact, Humans are superior to them because they have spirit and that when he grows up, he will understand this.

Trelane also throws in references to much older historical events, such as Hannibal's invaders, indicating that, although he is a child, he has already lived a very long life and has been watching our "lively little Earth" for many centuries.

I removed the following because it is more appropriate to the Trelane page - where it is already:

Fans have long speculated about a link between Trelane and Q, and author Peter David even wrote a novel, Q-Squared predicated on this notion. No canon evidence exists to support this theory, but while many fans support the link others point out that Trelane, unlike Q, appears to need machinery to support his abilities.

I removed the following because I'm not sure exactly what it means.

(The exact century in which Star Trek was set had not been determined during the filming of this episode...) Nonetheless, taking into account that the images Trelane would see of Earth, traveling through space, would take centuries to reach many solar systems, even at light speed. Another element is the idea that, although Trelane could observe the Earth through his viewing scope, he could not know how substances tasted, felt or smelled, resulting in fire without heat and food and drink without flavor.

I think the majority of the Judge Parker note could be moved to its own page; there is a Douglas MacArthur page, which is a similar situation. I also added a few incites. – Cleanse 09:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is plausible, but has been uncited for a while now:

Production designer Matt Jefferies says Trelane's castle was one of the projects of which he is most proud out of all his work in Star Trek.

Trelane's threat that Kirk will "hang by the neck until dead, dead, dead" is a quote attributed to 19th century Judge Isaac C. Parker, though historians say Parker never actually uttered this while imposing death sentences. [1][2]

I removed the above two notes as lacking citations as deliberate similarities/references. They can be restored if a citation is found.--31dot 04:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)